# Amicus Curiae Brief — American Ins. Assn. v. Garamendi

> Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more.

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40385014_0620%3A21

## Record

- **Collection:** Supreme Court brief
- **Document type:** Amicus Curiae Brief
- **Published:** January 1, 2003
- **Citation:** 539 U.S. 396

## Text

ia Supreme Court, | is. |
FILED
(I | FEB 24 2003
1) | Y) |
Nos. 0 ain, 02-733 | OFFICE OF THs CLERK |

IN THE
Supreme Court of the Hnited States

AMERICAN INSURANCE ASSOCIATION, ef ai.,
Petitioners,

V.

JOHN GARAMENDI, IN HIS CAPACITY AS COMMISSIONER
OF INSURANCE FOR THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA,
Respondent.

GERLING GLOBAL REINSURANCE CORP., ef al.,
Petitioners,

Vv.

JOHN GARAMENDI, IN HIS CAPACITY AS COMMISSIONER
OF INSURANCE FOR THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA,
Respondent.

On Writ of Certiorari to the United States
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

BRIEF OF GOVERNMENT OF SWITZERLAND AS
AMICUS CURIAE IN SUPPORT OF PETITIONERS

STEPHAN E. BECKER
Counsel of Record
JONATHAN W. GANNON
SHAW PITTMAN LLP
2300 N Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20037
(202) 663-8000

Counsel for Amicus Curiae
Government of Switzerland

Baimar Legal Publishing Services, Falls Church, VA (703) 289-9000 vv
~

A.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

The HVIRA Is Inconsistent With a Pre-
Existing Settlement Agreement Between Swiss
Industry, Class Action Plaintiffs, and the
World Jewish Restitution Organization That Is
Supported by the Swiss and United States

The HVIRA Conflicts With a Joint
Endorsement of the International Commission
on Holocaust Era Insurance Claims by the
Swiss and United States Governments

The HVIRA Would Require Swiss Companies
to Violate Swiss Law

The Ninth Circuit’s Decision Conflicts with
Holdings of this Court and the U.S. Courts of
Appeals for the First and Eleventh Circuits

CONCLUSION

ii
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

Cases Page

In re: Holocaust Victims Assets Litigation, 96 Civ. 4849,
2000 Dist. LEXIS 15644 (E.D.N.Y. Aug. 9, 2000)............. 4

Gerling Global Reins. Corp. v. Gallagher, 267 F.3d
ve Tt) le 2 ) 4,10

National Foreign Trade Council v. Natsios, 181 F.3d 38
(Ist Cir. 1999), aff'd on other grounds sub nom.,
Crosby v. National Foreign Trade Council, 120 S. Ct.
p72) Ty || | Ee 10

Zschernig v. Miller, 389 U.S. 429 (1968).....ccceseeeeeeeeeennees 10
Statutes and Rules

California Holocaust Victim Insurance Relief Act
of 1999 Cal. Ins. Code §§13800-13807 (2001)......... passim

Article 273, Swiss Pemal Code ..+..ccs.ccvcconcesssveeconvssosssssssscensovess 8
Miscellaneous

Restatement (Third) of the Foreign Relations Law
of the United States (1987) § 403 ................ccecceseseeeeeeeeeeeeees 8

EEE

Nos. 02-722, 02-733

—_—

IN THE
Supreme Court of the United States

AMERICAN INSURANCE ASSOCIATION, ef ai..
Petitioners,

Vv.

JOHN GARAMENDI, IN HIS CAPACITY AS COMMISSIONER
OF INSURANCE FOR THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA,

Respondent.

GERLING GLOBAL REINSURANCE CORP., et al.,
Petitioners,

Vv.

JOHN GARAMENDI, IN HIS CAPACITY AS COMMISSIONER
OF INSURANCE FOR THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA,

Respondent.

On Writ of Certiorari to the United States
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

BRIEF OF GOVERNMENT OF SWITZERLAND
AS AMICUS CURIAE IN SUPPORT OF PETITIONERS

Pursuant to Rule 37 of the Rules of this Court, the
Government of Switzerland respectfully submits this brief as

%

amicus curiae to urge reversal of the judgment below.
Petitioners and respondent consented to the filing of this brief.

INTEREST OF THE AMICUS CURIAE

Arising simultaneously with major reevaluations by
many countries of the conduct of their governments,
industries, and general populations during the World War II
era, the issue of payments by corporations to resolve
outstanding World War II era claims has become prominent
in recent years. The role of civil lawsuits in the United States
courts in this process has itself been highly controversial.

Switzerland was the first country to deal in a
comprehensive manner with the issue of corporate payments
to resolve World War II era claims. On August 9, 2000, the
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York
formally approved a settlement agreement among Swiss
companies, class action plaintiffs, and the World Jewish
Restitution Organization. The settlement agreement, which
includes payment to the plaintiffs of $1.25 billion, by its terms
provides for complete legal and material resolution of
Holocaust-related issues for all of Switzerland, with the
exception of three Swiss insurance companies. Meanwhile,
the Government of Switzerland has endorsed the work of the
International Commission on Holocaust Era Insurance
Claims, an international organization formed to address
unpaid insurance claims.

The Government of Switzerland has grave concerns that
the decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth
Circuit, by encouraging the State of California and other
States to pursue their own unilateral agendas, may undermine
the extensive efforts that have been made by Swiss industry,

' Counsel for the Government of Switzerland prepared this brief in its
entirety, and no person or entity other than the Government of Switzerland
and its counsel made a monetary contribution to its preparation or

—_

3

major Jewish organizations, and the Swiss and United States
governments to achieve a comprehensive resolution of a
difficult and complex international issue. In addition, the
Government of Switzerland has a vital interest in the
preservation of the integrity of the laws and legal system of
Switzerland, and believes that the decision of the Ninth
Circuit must be reversed to prevent the California statute from
requiring the production of confidential information from
Switzerland in a manner inconsistent with Swiss law and
sovereignty.

Accordingly, the Government of Switzerland submits
this bref to explain its views on why the California statute, if
applied, would interfere with Swiss-United States relations.

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT

The Holocaust Victim Insurance Relief Act of 1999
(“HVIRA”), Cal. Ins. Code §§13900-13807, is a California
statute that would impose onerous reporting burdens on
foreign companies, including Swiss companies, relating to
records of World War II era transactions that took place over
fifty years ago in foreign countries with persons who were not
United States citizens or present in the United States at the
time of those transactions. The purpose of the statute is to
facilitate the initiation of civil lawsuits in California against

foreign companies.

On February 7, 2001, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Ninth Circuit reversed the holdings of the U.S. District Court
for the Eastern District of California and held that the HVIRA
is consistent with the Foreign Commerce Clause and does not
infringe upon the foreign affairs power of the Executive
Branch. On remand, the district court issued a permanent
injunction enjoining enforcement of the HRIVA on the
grounds that mandating license suspension for non-
performance of impossible tasks deprived the petitioners of a
protected property interest without due process of law. On
July 15, 2002, the Ninth Circuit again reversed the district
court, distinguished the decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals

ee

. 5
for the Eleventh Circuit with respect to a similar statute in resolution of Holocaust-related issues for al
Gerling Global Reins. Corp. v. Gallagher, and upheld the with the express exception of three eee scrmecae

HRIVA against the petitioners’ constitutional claims.

Contrary to the Ninth Circuit’s holdings, the HVIRA, if
applied, will have a significant effect on the foreign relations
of the United States with Switzerland. The HVIRA is

The Swiss and United States Governments have formed
a Joint Economic Commission (“JEC”), comprised of senior
representatives of the two governments. In a Joint Statement
issued through the JEC on January 29, 2000, the Swiss and

inconsistent with the August 9, 2000 settlement of class action United States Governments reaffirmed their determination to
claims against Swiss interests in the United States District maintain open markets and to promote bilateral market access
Court for the Eastern District of New York, as well as with a for trade, finance and investment, including the insurance
joint Swiss-United States undertaking on Holocaust-related industry. With regard to Holocaust-related matters, the JEC
claims. In addition, by requiring Swiss companies to provide commended Switzerland’s ongoing efforts and specifically:

confidential information from Switzerland, the HVIRA would
compel the violation of Swiss sovereignty and Swiss privacy welcom[ed] the settlement that was achieved in In
laws. Finally, the Ninth Circuit's decision conflicts with Re Holocaust Victim Assets Litigation . . . which . . .
rulings of this Court and the U.S. Courts of Appeals for the when approved will be recognized by all interested

parties as complete legal and material resolution of

First and Eleventh Circuits. | Hol it tan air Gn of te habe
Based on these factors, this Court should reverse the economy . . . and for the Swiss government
Ninth Circuit’s decision and hold that the HRIVA is ER 2384-85. ;
unconstitutional. .
The application of the HVIRA to Swiss companies (other
ooenen , than the three specifically exempted from or ee
A. The HVIRA Is Inconsistent With a Pre-Existing would interfere with the settlement agreement's release of the
Settlement Agreement Between Swiss Industry, Class Swiss economy and would be inconsistent with the policies of
Action Plaintiffs, and the World Jewish Restitution the Swiss and United States Governments supporting that
Organization That Is Supported by the Swiss and sctiement.
United States Governments
On August 9, 2000, the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of New York formally approved a settlement
agreement among Swiss companies, class action plaintiffs,
and the World Jewish Restitution Organization regarding
World War II era claims in the case Jn re: Holocaust Victims
Assets Litigation, 96 Civ. 4849, 2000 U.S. Dist. Lexis 15644 ;
(E.D.N.Y. Aug. 9, 2000). The settlement agreement, which The three exempted insurers are Basler Lebensversicherungs-
includes payment to the class action plaintiffs of $1.25 billion, Lenni Sut Lebenaversichenengs-Geeetiecta, end Wintertoar
by its terms provides for complete legal and material :

tt Citations to “ER” refer to the Excerpts of Record in the preliminary
injunction appeal to the Ninth Circuit.

6

B. The HVIRA Conflicts With a Joint Endorsement of
the International Commission on Holocaust Era
Insurance Claims by the Swiss and United States

Governments

The JEC’s January 29, 2000 Joint Statement specifically
addressed the issue of insurance claims by stating that the two

governments:

further welcom[ed] the ongoing constructive
discussions in the framework of the International
Commission on Holocaust Era Insurance Claims pie
on unpaid policies of European insurance
companies dating from [the World War II] period,
as an appropriate forum for resolving Holocaust
related issues for those three Swiss insurance
companies not [released] by the Swiss settlement.

ER 2385.

In the Action Plan annexed to the Joint Statement, the
United States Government pledged to “call on State insurance
Commissioners and State legislative bodies to refrain from
taking unwarranted investigative initiatives oF from
threatening or actually using sanctions against Swiss
insurers.” ER 2390.

The JEC Joint Statement and the associated United
States Government assurances are of great importance to
Switzerland and Swiss industry, and accordingly the
Government of Switzerland has expressed concern to the
United States Government and the United States courts about
the HVIRA on a number of occasions. For example, on April
6, 2000, the Government of Switzerland presented to the
United States Government an Aide-Mémoire expressing its
opinion that state laws such as the HVIRA would violate
Swiss sovereignty and international law. App., infra, A- 1.
On June 2, 2000, the Government of Switzerland sent its
views on the HVIRA directly to the district court. ER 2375.

On August 9, 2000, the Government of Switzerland presented

7

a diplomatic note to the United States Government regarding
this case, in which it requested that the United States
Government submit a brief as amicus curiae to the Ninth
Circuit re-affirming the view that State legislative bodies
should refrain from threatening or imposing sanctions against
Swiss insurers. App., infra, B-1. The Government of
Switzerland later submitted a brief as amicus curiae to the
Ninth Circuit in support of the Petitioners’ request for a
rehearing en banc before the case was remanded to the district
court, and submitted a brief as amicus curiae supporting the
granting of the petition for certiorari in this appeal.

The Government of Switzerland is particularly
concerned that actions taken by the State of California under
the HVIRA will jeopardize the work of the International
Commission on Holocaust Era Insurance Claims, which was
formed to address issues of unpaid World War II era
insurance claims. In the view of the Government of
Switzerland, that commission is the most effective and
expeditious vehicle for resolving unreceived and as yet
unsettled insurance claims from the World War II era that are

not already covered by the settlement agreement discussed
above.

Finally, the Government of Switzerland notes that the
JEC is a continuing initiative, and that since the January 29,
2000 Joint Statement the JEC has engaged in a number of
discussions and joint projects on other topics. For example,
the JEC has promoted bilateral cooperative efforts on industry
biosafety measures to safeguard laboratories and pathogens
from terrorist access, and has spearheaded efforts to combat
international economic crime, including the blocking of
terrorist financing and the freezing of terrorist assets. The
JEC also provides a forum for the discussion of bilateral trade
issues. See Agenda for January 25, 2003 JEC Plenary
Session, App., infra, C-1. To the extent that the United States
Government is unable to implement the joint
recommendations of the JEC — such as with respect to the
issues involved with the HVIRA — the Government of

8

Switzerland is concerned that the credibility and effectiveness
of the JEC may be undermined.

C. The HVIRA Would Require Swiss Companies to
Violate Swiss Law

California lacks jurisdiction, as that concept is
commonly understood in international law, to regulate foreign
companies with respect to transactions that took place in
foreign countries with persons who were not United States
citizens or present in the United States at the time of those
transactions.’ In the absence of a genuine connection between
the issues involved and United States jurisdiction, the
enforcement of the HVIRA against insurance companies
headquartered in Switzerland would violate international law
and Swiss sovereignty. Furthermore, such enforcement
would result in conflicting requirements imposed on the
companies concerned to the extent that compliance with the
California legislation would require a violation of the
applicable Swiss privacy laws, resulting in interference with
the Swiss legal system.

In the view of the Government of Switzerland, the
HVIRA bears no genuine relation to the regulation of the
provision of insurance services in California, but rather is
designed to demonstrate that the state of California
disapproves of the international cooperative actions taken to
facilitate resolution of Holocaust era claims. Especially under

* See, e.g., Restatement (Third) of the Foreign Relations Law of the
United States (1987) § 403 (“[A] state may not exercise jurisdiction to
prescribe law with respect to a person or activity having connections with
another state when the exercise of such jurisdiction is unreasonable.”).

> For example, Article 273 of the Swiss Penal Code prohibits persons
in Switzerland from releasing to foreign governments confidential
business information relating to third parties, unless certain procedures are
followed within Switzerland that ensure that the rights of third parties are
appropriately protected. The California statute does not allow for the
application of this Swiss law.

9

these circumstances, the HVIRA’s extraterritorial reach
cannot be justified.

D. The Ninth Circuit’s Decision Conflicts with Holdings
of this Court and the U.S. Courts of Appeals for the
First and Eleventh Circuits

The Ninth Circuit’s decision is inconsistent with
holdings of this Court and other Courts of Appeals on the
Commerce Clause, the foreign affairs powers of the Executive
Branch and the requirements of due process.

In its initial ruling, the Ninth Circuit made the following
comment on the January 29, 2000 Joint Statement of the JEC:

But even if we were to assume that a conflict exists
between the Holocaust Act and the Swiss-US Joint
Statement with regard to seeking information from
Swiss insurers, Congress’ action controls in this
instance.... [A]s noted, the Swiss-US Joint
Statement is not a treaty, and preemption is not an
issue here. Plaintiffs’ argument that a “policy
interest” found in an executive branch “Joint
Statement” creating an Economic Commission
trumps Congress’ express constitutional authority to
regulate foreign commerce is incorrect.

Petition for Certiorari App. 54a-55a (footnotes omitted).

There is no dispute that Congress has the authority to
regulate foreign commerce, but Congress has not enacted any
statute that preempts or otherwise restricts the ability of the
Executive Branch to engage in negotiations with Switzerland
or other foreign countries regarding resolution of Holocaust-
related claims. The interpretation by the Ninth Circuit
appears to suggest that, absent the implementation of a formal
treaty, the Executive Branch lacks any foreign affairs power
worthy of respect by the courts. Such a restrictive
interpretation of the foreign affairs authority of the Executive
Branch, if allowed to stand, would have significant

10

consequences for the ability of the federal government to
interact with foreign nations.

Although the Ninth Circuit recognized that the Supreme
Court’s decision in Zschernig v. Miller, 389 U.S. 429 (1968),
held that a state may not intrude on the federal government's
foreign affairs power, it declined to apply that decision. The
Ninth Circuit’s ruling also is inconsistent with the recent
holding of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit on
the foreign affairs power in National Foreign Trade Council
v. Natsios, 181 F.3d 38, 49-59 (1st Cir. 1999), aff'd on other
grounds sub nom., Crosby v. National Foreign Trade
Council, 120 S. Ct. 2228 (2000).

Finally, the Ninth Circuit’s ruling conflicts with the
Eleventh Circuit’s decision in Gerling Global Reins. Corp. v.
Gallagher, 267 F.3d 1228 (11th Cir. 2001), which invalidated
Florida’s Holocaust Victims Insurance Act. Like the HRIVA,
the Florida statute imposed reporting requirements on the
Florida affiliates of European insurers that issued policies
during the Holocaust to facilitate civil lawsuits for World War
II era claims. The Eleventh Circuit held that the Florida
statute violated due process limits on Florida’s legislative
jurisdiction. Notwithstanding the Ninth Circuit’s attempt to
distinguish Gallagher, the facts and issues presented in these
two cases were virtually identical. The Government of
Switzerland believes that the reasoning of the Eleventh
Circuit in Gallagher is persuasive and is equally applicable to
the HVIRA.

~ —_———_—— —

1]
CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the Court should reverse the

Ninth Circuit’s decision and hold that the HRIVA is
unconstitutional.

Respectfully submitted,

STEPHAN E. BECKER
Counsel of Record
: JONATHAN W. GANNON
SHAW PITTMAN LLP
2300 N Street, N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20037
(202) 663-8000

Counsel for Amicus Curiae
Government of Switzerland

February 24, 2003

APPENDICES

a — it mt a mmm
Ce a eee -

A-|
APPENDIX A

AIDE MEMOIRE

Several US States - inter alia Florida, California and
Washington State - have enacted special legislation in the
context of unrecovered insurance policies dating from the
World War II period. These pieces of legislation require
insurance companies doing business in the States concerned
to provide comprehensive information on individual insurance
policies under the threat of severe penalties, including the
suspension of the companies’ business license. Considering
the clearly extraterritorial scope of these laws, their
enforcement against insurance companies headquartered in
Switzerland can be considered a violation of international law
and Swiss sovereignty, which is liable to result in conflicting
requirements imposed on the companies concerned to the
extent that full compliance with the special State legislation
would most likely imply a violation of applicable Swiss penal
and data protection laws.

The Swiss Government is concerned about this situation
and the renewed threat of sanctions and administrative
harassment in a number of US States against European
insurance companies, including Swiss companies. It considers
that such threats or the actual use of sanctions, on the basis of
potentially discriminatory and otherwise legally contestable
State legislations, is in contradiction with the spirit of
cooperation that the Swiss and US governments have
reaffirmed at Davos and could strain the bilateral relations
between Switzerland and the United States. Moreover, such
threats or sanctions are completely unjustified as well as
counter-productive in the light of the Swiss Settlement
Agreement as well as the cooperative attitude of the Swiss

_——

-~ - -

APPENDIX B

oH

EMBASSY OF SWITZERLAND

The Embassy of Switzerland presents its compliments to
the United States Department of State and has the honor of
requesting its assistance in relation to the case of Winterthur
International America Insurance Company, et al. v. Chuck
Quackenbush, Insurance Commissioner for the State of
California (Case No. CIV. S-00-779 [JFM]), in which the
California Holocaust Victim Insurance Relief Act (the
“California HVIRA”) is being challenged by several insurers
that do business in the State of California.

The California HVIRA purports to impose obligations on
Swiss and other foreign companies “related” to U.S.
companies, notwithstanding the fact that those companies are
not engaged in business in California or indeed in the United
States. It is the understanding of the Government of
Switzerland that if the related Swiss companies do not comply
with the directives of the California Insurance Commissioner
under the HVIRA, their U.S. affiliated companies could be
sanctioned and lose their licenses to conduct business in
California.

Because of the extraterritorial scope of this legislation
and the absence of a genuine connection between the issues
involved and U.S. jurisdiction, its enforcement against
insurance companies headquartered in Switzerland would
violate international law and Swiss sovereignty. Furthermore,
such enforcement would result in the imposition of conflicting
requirements on the companies concerned to the extent that
compliance with the California legislation would require a
violation of the applicable Swiss penal and data protection

B-2

laws. The Government of Switzerland is concerned about
potential attempts to interfere with the Swiss legal system.

The Government of Switzerland is also concerned that
enforcement of this legislation would interfere with the Class
Action Settlement Agreement reached in In Re Holocaust
Victim Assets Litigation (“Swiss Settlement”). The Swiss
Settlement by its terms provides for complete legal and
material resolution of Holocaust-related issues for all of
Switzerland, with the exception of three Swiss insurers which
are involved in separate lawsuits. The California HVIRA
conflicts with the Swiss Settlement’s release of all other
Swiss insurance companies and therefore is inconsistent with
United States and Swiss government policies supporting the
Settlement.

e tiie, © om ian. Se
HVIRA have been specifically addressed in the framework ry)
oe hin Rae ene eS ee

our governments. A Joint Statement issued on the occasion
of the inaugural meeting of the JEC specifically “welcomfed!
the settlement that was achieved in In Re Holocaust Victim
Assets Litigation . . . which . . . , when approved will be
recognized by all interested parties as complete legal and
material resolution of Holocaust related issues for all of the
Swiss economy [including the banking, insurance and
manufacturing sectors] . . . and for the Swiss government.
The JEC “further welcomfed] the ongoing constructive
discussions in the framework of the International Commission
on Holocaust Era Insurance Claims (“Eagleburger
Commission”) on unpaid policies of European insurance
companies dating from [the World War II] period, as an
appropriate forum for resolving Holocaust related issues for
those three Swiss insurance companies not [released] by the
Swiss settlement.” The JEC stated that it would “address
issues related to potentially disruptive and counterproductive
effects of investigative initiatives or the threat or actual use of
sanctions on a sub-federal level against insurers, including

B-3

those that are part of the Swiss settlement or that are
participants in the Eagleburger Commission.”

In the Action Plan annexed to the Joint Statement, the
U.S. Government pledged to “call on the U.S. State insurance
Commissioners and State legislative bodies to refrain from
taking unwarranted investigative initiatives or from
threatening or actually using sanctions against Swiss
insurers.”

The Government of Switzerland has on several recent
occasions expressed concern to the U.S. Government about
State actions related to Holocaust insurance issues. Most
recently, on April 6, 2000, the Government of Switzerland
presented to the U.S. Government an Aide-Mémoire
requesting prompt attention to this issue and expressing
concern that such laws as the California HVIRA violate Swiss
sovereignty and international law and may cause involved
Swiss insurance companies to violate Swiss laws. The
Government of Switzerland further objected to laws such as
the California HVIRA on the grounds that they are potentially
discriminatory against Swiss financial industries and a
potential cause of strain on relations between the two
countries. The Aide-Mémoire pointed out that laws such as
the California HVIRA are counter-productive in light of the
efforts and cooperative attitude of Swiss insurance companies
in this matter.

Consistent with our understanding of the Department of
State’s policy of encouraging foreign governments to
communicate directly with the United States Courts, the
Government of Switzerland attempted to submit its views on
this matter in a letter dated June 2, 2000 to the federal district
court in which the case is being heard. The Embassy of
Switzerland has learned, however, that on July 31, 2000, the
court stated that it would not accept submission of the letter
for procedural reasons. The Embassy therefore requests that
the Department of State forward a copy of this note to the
court on its behalf.

B-4

The Government of Switzerland is informed that a
liminary decision of the district court imposing 4
eer injunction against enforcement of the California
HVIRA is currently pending before the Court of Appeals for
the Ninth Circuit. The Government of Switzerland hereby
requests that the United States Government make a submssion
to the Court of Appeals, re-affirming the position of the Joint
Economic Commission that the International Commission on
. Holocaust Era Insurance Claims is the appropriate forum for
resolving remaining pertinent issues and that State authorities
should refrain from taking unwarranted investigative
initiatives or from threatening or imposing sanctions against
Swiss insurers that would be liable to cause serious,
irreparable damage to the companies concerned.

The Embassy of Switzerland avails — = r~
opportunity to thank the United States Department of State for
se cooperation and 10 senew the assurances of its highset
consideration.

Washington, D.C., August 9, 2000

United States Department of State
Washington, D.C.

C-]

JEC PLENARY SESSION
SATURDAY - JANUARY 25, 2003 - DAVOS

A. During Secretary Thompson’s Participation

1. Bioterrorism Cooperation: Completing U.S.-
Swiss industry initiative for promoting worldwide
industry “biosafety” measures to safeguard labs and
pathogens from terrorist access;

(ENCOURAGING CONTINUED ENGAGEMENT
OF US. AND SWISS PHARMACEUTICAL
INDUSTRIES TO COMPLETE A BIOSAFETY

CODE TO FIGHT BIOTERRORIST ACCESS TO
LABS)

2. FDA-Swissmedic Regulatory Cooperation:
Cooperation between U.S FDA and Swissmedic in

Steps Toward a Mutual Recognition Agreement for
Pharmaceutical and Medical Device Products:

(CURRENT STATE OF PLAY BETWEEN FDA
AND SWISSMEDIC ON THEIR WORKPLAN.

POLITICAL LEVEL SUPPORT FOR CURRENT
PACE?)

1. Blocking Terrorist Financing / Freezing
errorist Assets: Improving bilateral communication:
projects for capacity building in developing financial
centers;

(REPORT ON U.S.-SWISS COOPERATION TO
DATE / WHAT’S NEXT IN FIGHT AGAINST
TERRORIST FINANCING? POSSIBLE JOINT
EFFORTS TOWARDS CAPACITY BUILDING FOR

C-2
BETTER FINANCIAL CE! 1&8 DUE DILIGENCE;
SUPPORT FOR FATF PROCLSS)

2. US Security Measures, including Container
Security Initiative (CSI) and Impact on Int’! trade:
(CONSULTATIONS ON THE EFFECTS OF U.S.
SECURITY MEASURES ON SWISS COMPANIES;
IDENTIFICATION OF MEASURES THAT COULD
INFLUENCE BILATERAL TRADE)

. Im of Corporate Oversight Measures:
Sentai on Sarbanes-Oxley and Auditing
Reforms’ International Impact; a aia

TATIONS ON THE EFFEC S.
NaPOnD MEASURES ON SWISS COMPANIES
AND INT’L FIRMS BASED IN SWITZERLAND.
DISCUSSION OF GOVERNMENT SCOPE FOR
STRENGTHENING LEGAL OR SELF-
REGULATORY STRUCTURES TO ENSURE
BETTER CORPORATE GOVERNANCE.)

D. Cooperative Development Efforts _in _ Southeast

Europe and Central Asia

1. Southeast Europe Economic Stability: Report
on progress in creating structures conducive to private
investment;

(ASSESSMENT OF PROGRESS FOR STABILITY
PACT AND OTHER ASSISTANCE EFFORTS BY

BOTH SIDES)

| RI

a

C-3

2. World Summit on Sustainable Development-
WSSD: Follow Up: Joint Development Outreach to
Central Asia: Trade Capacity Building;

(LAUNCHING U.S.-SWISS PARTNERSHIP AS
FOLLOW UP TO WSSD)

1. Holocaust Assets: Resolution of Insurance
Claims;

(UPDATE ON CURRENT PROGRESS THROUGH
EAGLEBURGER COMMISSION)

2. WTO/Trade Issues: Cooperation at Doha; including
TRIPS issue for pharmaceuticals; steel

(REPORT ON OUR DOHA PRIORITIES AND
FOLLOW UP)

3. Trade in Livestock Products: Resolving
Disputes over U.S. beef entry to Swiss market and
Swiss dried beef access to U.S.

(REPORT ON CURRENT DIALOGUE (ROAD
MAP) TOWARDS RESOLVING IMPORT OF
DRIED BEEF TO U.S. AND IMPORT OF USS.
BEEF TO SWITZERLAND)

4. Thomas Bill: Potential impact on foreign direct
investment

5. Telecommunication: Provisioning of Leased
Lines and Unbundling the Last Mile

C-4

(SWISS UPDATES ON TELECOM POLICY
REFORMS)

F. _ Export Controls

1. Non-proliferation and Export Controls:
Progress in strengthening Wassenaar, the CWC, and
other instruments.

(EXCHANGE OF VIEWS ON ISSUES THAT NEED
TO BE ADDRESSED TO IMPROVE
COORDINATION OF REGIMES CONTROLLING
EXPORTS OF ARMS AND - DUAL-USE
TECHNOLOGIES)

G. Science and Technology Cooperation

1. Science and Technology Framework
Agreement (STFA): Promoting synergy between
research and industry;

(MERITS OF A POSSIBLE U.S.-SWISS S&T
FRAMEWORK AGREEMENT)

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40385014_0620%3A21. Public record. Not legal advice.